| Revision as of 10:43, 12 May 2022 editSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,275 edits →top: Alphabetizing← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:34, 27 February 2023 edit undoHist9600 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users911 edits →Deletion of SPLC report about J. Michael Baily and The Man Who Would Be Queen: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| I also want to add that Bailey's book is not considered as a "textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects" by transgender people. For example, deconstruction's of the book's science and ideas have been put out and - both of whom are trans, and could be considered as valid representatives of the community view ] (]) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC) | I also want to add that Bailey's book is not considered as a "textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects" by transgender people. For example, deconstruction's of the book's science and ideas have been put out and - both of whom are trans, and could be considered as valid representatives of the community view ] (]) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| == Deletion of SPLC report about J. Michael Baily and The Man Who Would Be Queen == | |||
| This has happened a number of times now, and we all know why: association with HBD looks bad to some people. But that is not a good reason to delete well-sourced materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC is one of Misplaced Pages's perennial sources, and reports reliably for hate groups and anti-LGBT activities. The materials are directly relevant to the positive reviews cited in the article, because as the SPLC report notes, many of those reviews were done by members associated with HBD. Trying to constantly remove that link and delete it with silly claims about it being ] when the report is directly addressing the book that this article is about, is an abuse of the editing process. ] (]) 01:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:34, 27 February 2023
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Man Who Would Be Queen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | LGBTQ+ studies B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Sexology and sexuality B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Man Who Would Be Queen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Man Who Would Be Queen at the Reference desk. |
 | Reference ideas for The Man Who Would Be QueenThe following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Autogynephilia in Women.
Has anyone read Charles Moser's paper claiming that autogynephilia occurs in women? "To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire that included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital; 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis. By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591032
If this is true does this not completely discredit Blanchard and Bailey? 75.84.159.117 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The unregistered user has also asked the same question at Talk:Feminine_essence_concept_of_transsexuality#Autogynephilia_in_Women.. Perhaps one location is sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps not. It concerns both articles and perhaps many more, but different aspects. Since you watch both so very closely you can oversee, making sure there is no duplication of discussion. Perhaps cross posting by link relevant to this books article. 75.84.159.117 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- The question was valid , if it is peer reviewed should it not be included in the controversy section on the book. The entire premise of this theory was that having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman was unique only to these MTF's. No study was ever done on women, men or FTM's to this point. 93% of the regular women being tested coming out autogynephilic is an amazing blow against the entire theory and needs to be included. This information is from 2011, why is it not included?76.93.64.21 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think the point stands as a counter point to the books conclusions. A new section should be created citing Moser's published article demonstrating the alleged" affliction occurs in women. Are there any disagreements with this ? 24.24.142.155 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The Man Who Would be Queen
The piece clearly violates the policy of a neutral point of view. It is strongly slanted in favor of Bailey and against his critics. The slant is obvious, which may make it less dangerous in encouraging the enemies of queers. But some readers are naive, and need the policy of neutrality to be enforced.
Deirdre McCloskey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.185.221 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Folks interested in the above comment would likely want to know of Dr. McCloskey's long-standing campaign against the book and filing of charges against its author.
- Excerpted from http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12/when-liberals-attack-social-science.html:
- "Before the full weight of the controversy descended, The Man Who Would Be Queen had been nominated for the Lambda Literary Award’s 2004 prize in the transgender/genderqueer category for its textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects. As a result of immense pressure — Deirdre McCloskey, a respected scholar of economics and history who wrote a memoir about her male-to-female transition, and who helped Conway and James go after Bailey, said nominating the book for the award “would be like nominating Mein Kampf for a literary prize in Jewish studies” — the organization voted to yank the nomination."
- "To get a flavor of the quality of the evidence amassed against Bailey by his critics, consider one charge: that Bailey had practiced psychology without a license. Conway, James, and McCloskey filed a formal complaint with the state of Illinois claiming that, since Bailey lacked a license as a clinical psychologist, he had violated state regulations by writing those letters in support of the young trans women seeking to transition. Not only was there no legal basis to the claim — if you don’t receive compensation for your services, which Bailey didn’t, you don’t even need a license to provide counseling in Illinois — but Bailey was completely forthright in his letters supporting the women, both about the fact that he had only had brief conversations with them (as opposed to having provided them with extensive counseling) and about his own qualifications and expertise — he even attached copies of his CV. “Presumably all this was why never bothered to pursue the charge,” writes Dreger, “although you’d never know that from reading the press accounts, which mentioned only the complaints, not that they had petered out.”"
- — James Cantor (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Readers please note that James Cantor is a completely bias source , a cohort of Dr Bailey and an advocate pushing Baileys ridiculous theories. This article is now completely compromised and worthless. Dr Bailey might as well have written it himself172.115.128.79 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I also want to add that Bailey's book is not considered as a "textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects" by transgender people. For example, deconstruction's of the book's science and ideas have been put out by Contrapoints and iconic author Imogen Binnie - both of whom are trans, and could be considered as valid representatives of the community view Ninquelosse (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of SPLC report about J. Michael Baily and The Man Who Would Be Queen
This has happened a number of times now, and we all know why: association with HBD looks bad to some people. But that is not a good reason to delete well-sourced materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC is one of Misplaced Pages's perennial sources, and reports reliably for hate groups and anti-LGBT activities. The materials are directly relevant to the positive reviews cited in the article, because as the SPLC report notes, many of those reviews were done by members associated with HBD. Trying to constantly remove that link and delete it with silly claims about it being WP:COATRACK when the report is directly addressing the book that this article is about, is an abuse of the editing process. Hist9600 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Categories: